Janet & Nick In The Morning's Take On "The Second Pregnant Man"

Bayard Rustin

This quote from Bayard Rustin makes so much sense. Just as homosexuals have always existed, so have people who are always going to be uncomfortable with homosexuality. We aren't going away, and they're not changing.

We passed civil rights and anti-segregation laws. Does that mean that there aren't folks who don't like blacks and women now? Nope. We all have to learn to live together. Not eliminate each other.

---

by: HeyBudBoston @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 07:44:49 AM CST

I take note...

...that transwomen who exercised their fertility options by storing sperm before HRT and surgery, can still get a cisgen female preggers, and doesn't meet with the same sort of scrutiny.  Do we not have the same reproductive rights as cisgen couples according to the UN and WHO?

---

by: RadarGrrl @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 08:59:13 AM CST

Hooray for some common sense!

I know that many transmen have kids, all along for decades, when in all stages of transition. They didn't have to become a media "sensation" overnight, they simply chose to conceive a child and that's great.

I'm on the side of -- if they're a man, then don't get pregnant. BUT -- if they do, don't take it to the media. Keep it low profile. Every individual has a right to govern their own body, including having a kid.

But being out in the news is not good right now, with society needing so much education and very susceptible now that "trans" is becoming a household word. - Trans man Michael Brown

YES, the comments on this radio show [a genre populated by people paid to disprove Darwin's theories of EVOLUTION] were ignorant and hateful and should be protested.

But how about a Facebook group to protest pathologically narcisstic attention whores solely out for attention via EXPLOITING such ignorance and hatred?

It is possible to be for the right of a trans man to have a child and against USING  that child for your own sick need for 15 minutes of fame...whether it's parents dressing their four-year old daughters up like adult sex tarts and forcing them into kiddie "beauty pageants," claiming your hidden child has been swept away in a uncontrollable balloon, "Octomomming," or releasing photos of your pregnancy whose only "value" is to shock.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:08:55 AM CST

This seems unfair

to say the least. I don't know about this new guy, but Beattie and his wife told their story knowing that if they didn't, it would be told for them. That was a personal choice that they thought was in the best interest of their family, in their particular situation.

If you don't know for a fact that someone is merely an attention whore, please don't assume or say that.

Equality Loudoun - Community and advocacy for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Loudoun County, Virginia since 2003

---

by: David Weintraub @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:52:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Epistemology

...is the study of the ability to "know."

Beattie and his wife told their story knowing that if they didn't, it would be told for them.

And they told it again and again and again and again, releasing "sensational" picture after picture, delighting in their ultimate attention: appearing on Oprah.

You don't "know" their intentions were "good" anymore than I can "know" that this couple's intentions are "bad."

But I, and trans man Michael Brown, believe, whatever the motivation, it's counterproductive at this point in time.

"Making gay [or trans] love" is "good"....ya wanna see it on Oprah?

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:34:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We don't know.

We can only believe what they said, or not.

Equality Loudoun - Community and advocacy for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Loudoun County, Virginia since 2003

---

by: David Weintraub @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 15:13:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Some people would call this

Visibility. I've been thinking about something from a slightly different but similar angle in regards to asexuality. The asexual community needs a lot of visibility and are entering the phase where they need people to step up and be visible examples of this.

This means that there is a slight political pressure on me to at least consider making my private life public on behalf of that need. Similarly in the queer community we often know that coming out and making personal lives public is critical for political victories and for cutting through the fear and hate that thrives and spreads in ignorance (because most people are boring and therefore harder to hate in real life).

So, what's the right solution?

Is it attention whoring to go out and speak up for a circumstance that is rare and does need visibility (the existence and needs of pregnant trans men, the existence and needs of trans men in general)? Or is it just visibility?

And if pregnancy is the only thing keeping our magpie media focusing any attention on trans men, then is it wrong to take advantage of it? Is it an opportunity to do some good or is it reinforcing a bad media habit?

These aren't easy questions and your blanket condemnation hopelessly simplifies them in the least intelligent or useful manner possible.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 06:32:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Denial

The public needs to get past their denial and admit that transsexual people exist.  That's where comments like this come from, they want to believe transsexualism is a choice when it is fact an inborn medical condition.  We have to keep pushing forward, keep educating until they do get it.  As far as trans men getting pregnant I look on it like I look at abortion: I may not personally agree with it, but I will defend their right to make their own decisions about their bodies.

Transsexual people exist.  And as a result it is possible for a man to get pregnant.

Also, why don't they talk about the other side of the fertility coin?  The fact that those of us who fully transition are rendered sterile.  You don't hear anyone talking about that price we pay for congruence.

---

by: xrk9854 @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 13:21:32 PM CST

Exactly.

Transsexual people exist.  And as a result it is possible for a man to get pregnant.

If not for these teachable moments, how will people ever learn that it's not reproductive tracts that determine gender? In a certain sense, these disrespectful radio hosts are affirming the guy's gender more than than his own peers, some of whom would claim that he's not "really" male unless he's sterile.

Equality Loudoun - Community and advocacy for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Loudoun County, Virginia since 2003

---

by: David Weintraub @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 15:12:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not every teachable moment ....

...results in anything being learned, particularly about a topic this complex. And "he" has made it even more so by the fact that, unlike Thomas Beatie, "he's" in a relationship with another "man," defines "himself" as a "man" but used "his" female birth certificate to legally marry "his" partner, and is being quoted saying things like,

"[When we found out I was pregnant] we were so happy we did what all gay men do when they get excited - we went shopping."

Way to go, Attention Whore! Add to the stereotypes of TWO minority groups in one breath!

But wanting to learn, I have some questions:

What is the danger, if any, to the fetus of the male hormone treatments the "biological female" has had even if they were stopped long enough for fertilization?

If the purpose is to "teach" and not just "attention via provocation," what is the point of posing for so many photos where the exposed, inflated stomach is emphasized which had already been done ad nauseum by Thomas Beatie, e.g., while shaving, in a bubble bath, sitting totally nude? When someone in our own lives, or a celebrity announced their pregnant, do we have to see their exposed belly to believe it. The photo above in the sweater could have illustrated the same "lesson."

Will they be selling wallet-size photos soon?

Again, saying one thinks a particular trans person is a pathetic narcissistic, immature ass for something he or she has chosen to do, i.e., literally rub it half-naked in the face of a public that already believes "trans" is a sideshow, is NOT the same thing as being anti trans.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 17:00:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your use of "scare quotes"

to denote this guy's identity as invalid says a lot more about you than about him, frankly. You have a lot of animus.

True, not every teachable moment results in learning. It doesn't happen by itself, it depends on us and what we choose to do with it. I choose to deal with this, regardless of the motivations of the family involved, by educating people who react to it with uninformed presuppositions about what gender is. That seems like the more productive approach.

Also, I see a great deal of love and sacrifice in this act. For a man to stop hormones and put his body through something like this, let alone endure the ridicule of ignorant people, he must really want to be a father. Lucky kid.

Equality Loudoun - Community and advocacy for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in Loudoun County, Virginia since 2003

---

by: David Weintraub @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 18:06:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And you have a lot of gall....

Where do you get off characterizing my perfectly valid and NEUTRAL use of punctuation as "animus." Such predictable party line histrionics confuse the meaning of "scare quotes" with "scarecrow."

They were meant to help the reader understand the chain of events as well as illustrate the complexity of the subject which is NOT helped by intentionally provocative photos posed for by an attention whore. The adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" connotes words that AID in understanding not obstruct it.

E.g., the couple is only legally married because one while personally "identifying" as male used the birth certificate identifying "him" as female thus apparently wanting to have it both ways. To be exact, I could find no indication of when they were married so it's impossible yet to know whether they married as a "heterosexual couple," or as a "gay couple" in the brief window in 2008 when that was legal in CA. BUT Scott became Jessica again long enough for the issuing of a license.

The only relevant "animus" I have is to "attention whores" who put that need ahead of the potential harm their attention whoring can do to others....no matter what their gender identity, their sexual orientation, their nationality, their age, their race, religion, or creed.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 19:04:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

let me see if i understand this.

one of these guys is using his old birth certificate so that they can be legally married?  i fail to see the problem.  they found a way to make our extremely bigoted system of law work for them.  excellent!  i'm shocked that anyone here would berate them for this rather than laud them.  the system is rigged against LGBT people (hadn't you noticed?).  when LGBT people can roll the system, i say more power to them.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 22:08:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

YES.

I do agree with this completely.

---

by: Louise @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 05:30:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes

The current bans on gay marriage are interesting in regards to trans people. It tends to ban straight trans couples (one trans, one cis) but gay trans couples (one trans, one cis) can totally get legally married (unless they do so after their legal name change in which they're in the same boat as cis folks, unless they move to a state or travel through a state where they ignore legal sex changes and then kaboom) and it gets really fun legally when both are trans.

It should be a great illustration how futile the attempts to ban "gay marriage" are and the media circus should be welcomed for that reason alone.

You really are getting an education today.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 06:38:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow. Please read our TOS.

Per the TOS:

8. You may not post or transmit any message which is harmful, threatening, abusive, hateful, or defamatory (defamatory anti-lesbian, anti-gay, anti-bisexual, and anti-transgender language will include, but not be limited to, the language identified as defamatory within the current online version of the GLAAD Media Guide). Excessive use of profanity is discouraged, epithets directed at community members are grounds for suspension or deactivation (banning) at any time.

Moderator Action: A single public warning in the comment thread is considered fair notice prior to a suspension or ban. The offending comment(s) may also be left intact as proof of the violation, or deleted at the moderator's discretion.

From the GLAAD Media Reference guide linked to in rule 8.:

NAMES & PRONOUN USAGE

We encourage you to use a transgender person's chosen name. Often transgender people cannot afford a legal name change or are not yet old enough to change their name legally. They should be afforded the same respect for their chosen name as anyone else who lives by a name other than their birth name (e.g., celebrities).

We also encourage you to ask transgender people which pronoun they would like you to use. A person who identifies as a certain gender, whether or not they have taken hormones or had surgery, should be referred to using the pronouns appropriate for that gender.

If it is not possible to ask the person which pronoun he or she prefers, use the pronoun that is consistent with the person's appearance and gender expression. For example, if the person wears a dress and uses the name "Susan," feminine pronouns are appropriate.

It is never appropriate to put quotation marks around either the transgender person's chosen name or the pronoun that reflects their gender identity.

Micheal, the trans man identifies himself as male. In accordance with our TOS and the GLAAD Media Reference Guide's Transgender Glossary's NAMES & PRONOUN USAGE section, it was inapporpriate for you to put quotations marks around the male pronouns.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 18:48:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I understand, however

...if you read my explanation above [apparently posted at the same time you were posting your comment] you will see that this is an example where every reasonable advisory has an intelligent and fair exception, and nothing in GLAAD's guide addresses specifically the SCIENTIFIC [and neutral] fact that males cannot bear children so how does one write about such stories [which I'd guess arose post the creation of the guide] clearly without such road maps of punctuation, as well as the fact in this particular situation that Scott has played legal games with his identity.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 19:11:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sex and Gender

Not all men are male and not all women are female. Sex and gender do not always converge within an individual, which is why transsexuals exist in the first. We're all well aware that males do not have uteruses or ovaries (unless they are not 100% male), but some men do.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 00:17:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Last warning, Michael Bedwell.

Here at Pam's House Blend, you are not the final arbiter of violations of the TOS; Pam and we other baristas are.

Your "SCIENTIFIC" explanation for violating the TOS is not acceptable to us baristas. (And yes, we did discuss your use of quotation marks surrounding a male pronoun behind the scenes -- so us is the right word, and is not just me speaking in third person.)

Your defense of the use of quotation marks indicates you believe it is acceptable to engage in similar behavior into the future. It is not. It is not acceptable under any circumstance, except when quoting others (such as how Tommy Marx used the quotation marks around the gender marker he in a thread comment below to quote what was said at the radio station.)

I hope this is abundantly clear to you at this point; into the future my peer baristas and I are not going to repeat ourselves on the TOS's and the GLAAD Media Reference Guide's take on on any aspect of defamatory language to you.

It is YOUR responsibility to familiarize yourself with the TOS, as well as YOUR repsonsibility to follow the TOS. It is absolutely not our job as baristas to educate you on the TOS.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:54:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Also

As a scientist, I can't allow the pseudoscientific bs of "science says" to fly without comment.

Science has balls all to say about whether or not men can conceive children. Furthermore, science has come down on the side that pregnancy is not an inherently female act. The existence of pregnant trans men alone disproves the theory and that is accepted by any scientist worth its salt.

Furthermore, any competent biologist worth his salt would be very VERY hesitant to use that tautology given that one of the "interesting facts of the natural world" that we all get in intro biology classes is:

MALE SEAHORSES GET PREGNANT.

Thus making it a hideous place to draw some sort of gender essentialist line.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:21:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

get real here

While it might somehow violate a strict reading of the TOS using those ridiculous media guidelines there simply is no way a rational human being can claim that the simple use of quotation marks around a gender pronoun of someone who specifically and willfully violated every basic human understanding of what male and female are  can possibly be called "harmful, threatening, hateful or defamatory.  Not while holding any grip on reality as experienced by the vast vast majority of people in the world.

It is precisely this over the top politically correct bull that stops any meaningful discussion of complex issues and has resulted in widespread change from the former (about 15-10 years ago) 70%+ public acceptance of transsexual people as members of their actual sex to the current less than 30% acceptance.  So ban me now Autumn for saying what so many have been afraid to say.  I find those GLAAD media guidelines demeaning, insulting, hateful and directly threatening to my position in the world as a woman.  Why does that count for nothing?

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:31:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I will answer your question...

...but further discussion needs to move to an open thread.

Pam wrote everything in our TOS. My peer baristas and I talked her some about what we would like to see in the TOS, but all of the language used in the TOS are all literally Pam's words -- she did not cut and paste language from any of us other baristas.

We are "real" here; many of the rules were created as a rational response to problems folk had with totally unmediated free speech. Many blenders appreciate the coffee house feel of the comment threads we seek to preserve in the blog's comment threads, and we pay attention to that.

Many of us baristas -- including Pam -- have reiterated more than once that PHB is not a total free speech zone. One may say one wants on the web -- subject to the limitations of federal laws and the terms of service of your service provider -- but one may not say anything one wants to here at Pam's House Blend.

PHB has rules for posting in the thread comments and in creating user diaries here as a response to pervious discussion threads and diaries at PHB; one must conform what one says to the rules found in the TOS, or one will not be allowed to continue participating in discussions here. Again, this is to preserve the coffee house feel here -- as defined by Pam what she wants the coffee house feel to function like.

If you personally don't want to conform to the TOS at PHB, then you personally don't have to participate in discussions here. It's literally that simple.

So, please don't make the following the PHB rules found within the TOS a discussion point in any other thread, other than in the discussions of open threads. But, PHB developed terms of service for a reason, and at this point we're not entertaining the idea of changing or eliminating those rules.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 13:02:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

HRT and Pregnancy

What is the danger, if any, to the fetus of the male hormone treatments the "biological female" has had even if they were stopped long enough for fertilization?

No greater than the danger from a woman with polycystic ovarian syndrome, or any otherwise less than perfect body.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 00:09:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't mind fags

But damnitt, why can't they keep it to themselves instead of shoving it in our faces.

This is exactly how you are coming off.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 06:33:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Same Rule 8 TOS rule above applies, Cerberus, to you and Micheal Bedwell.

From the GLAAD Media Reference Guide's section entitled Defamatory Language>:

"fag," "faggot," "dyke," "homo," "sodomite," "queen," "she-male," "he-she," "it," "tranny" and similar epithets.

The criteria for using these derogatory terms should be the same as those applied to hate words for other groups: they should not be used except in a direct quote that reveals the bias of the person quoted...

The same Rule 8 of the TOS cited to Michael Bedwell above also applies to you.

If you and/or Micheal Bedwell's violation of Rule 8 was meant as a joke or as hyperbole -- or to make a "scientific point" -- these are not acceptable explanations.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:28:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually I was deliberately

Pointing out the offensiveness in his statement and its direct parallel to more commonly accepted offensive statements.

Of course, if I was less of a moron I would have realized that would be most triggering for the innocent people on the sidelines rather than the intended target.

I apologize profusely.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:24:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree

The hosts said a pregnant man with a beard looks weird. I don't think that was hateful. Since very few people have EVER seen a pregnant, bearded man before (I know I haven't), that's pretty much the textbook definition ("of strange or extraordinary character").

What I noticed was that they kept referring to Scott as "he", even though he is apparently still at least partially pre-op. Even pointing out that he's listed as female on his birth certificate, they still refer to him by his gender identification. To me, they showed a lot of respect.

Their jokes seemed aimed more at why would a man choose to be pregnant then at making fun of transgenders. If that had been the case, they would not have identified him every single time as a man.

---

by: Tommy Marx @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 13:31:36 PM CST

That stood out for me too.

Their consistent use of the correct pronoun tells me that they were making a genuine effort. Though it's always hard for me to hear the "Eeeeww"-type comments, I think they are forgivable in this case. My only complaint, (aside from the sensationalism of the whole thing,) is really Janet's "Wrong, wrong, wrong" comment.

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 23:52:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My "Porn"

Hi Michael

I just wanted to make a comment on what you said about the 2nd pregnant man and the only reason people recognize transmen is because of
"because of a hate crime (Brandon Teena), porn (Buck Angel) or PREGNANT men."
My work has become way more than just "porn" I have made huge strides for the trans community and awareness on levels that have never been done before. "Porn" is also not a bad thing! It has helped many transmen deal with their sexuality and body issues in a positive way.
This next month I am speaking at YALE and they are putting on a Master's Tea for me. I think that says it all!
Thanks

Buck Angel®
Winner AVN Transsexual Performer of the Year Award  
AVN 2008-10 Nominated Transsexual Performer of the Year
XBIZ 2010 Nominated Transsexual Performer of the Year

http://buckangel.com/
http://www.facebook.com/buckangel
http://twitter.com/BuckAngel
http://buckangelentertainment....

---

by: buckangel @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 14:02:28 PM CST

Hey, nice to have you here!

I agree with you that you have done more education work that you're credited for.

Although I'm not a huge watcher of porn and have never seen a video of yours, I do know of you, and the postives you've done for trans male sexuality.

So, thank you for that part of your work. I appreciate what you've done for broader trans community.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 19:03:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sometimes, you have to let people speak for themselves

And here's an excellent example.

When the Province of Alberta delisted health care coverage of GRS in April of last year, a couple people pressured me to say nothing, because even though I was surgery-tracked at that time, a couple years prior I had been vocally non-op and people felt that this was a liability.  And the few times that it came up in interviews, I simply explained that I finally reached a point in late 2008 of having to deal with the squick of body parts that to me never felt like they belonged there -- and get closure on that.  And anyone who asked that question got it.  It was a non-issue.

Later that fall, I heard whispers of panic when the Edmonton GLB community invited Buck Angel to headline the Exposure Festival in Edmonton.  "The very summer that Albertans were having to wrap their heads around GRS as a necessity, they're introduced to someone who's loudly non-op," went the meme.

Yet, once again, people got it.  I wasn't able to make it to Edmonton to attend, but every report I got back about his appearance was overwhelmingly positive.  And it worked because Buck told his story, didn't apologize, acknowledged other perspectives, and people were able to put it into the context of what they'd heard before: some folks experience their transness to a lesser intensity in which they can function and take pride, and for those who can't, GRS is absolutely needed in order to cope with life.  It helped that this was also part of the message that our GID therapist has been presenting to people all along.

Ignorance is not overcome by allowing people to remain ignorant.  Beatie and Moore may very well have wanted press when they went public with their stories.  In the end, it doesn't matter.  For some of the public, it is stories like these that get people talking and learning.  For those who refuse to learn, it gets them used to the fact that we exist.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that this media coverage sometimes makes things very difficult for transmen to do their advocacy work, can hinder short-term fundraising and more.  

My thoughts, though, are with guys who want to have a family (it is a part of the upbringing many have had, after all), and Beatie's story tells them that this option is available to them.  Moore's story tells the rest of the public that this is not going to be a once-only-ever event, which is important in getting medical professionals to confront their own notions, so that they, too, might be willing to help should a transman ever step into their office looking for help; tells people in the insurance, family development and human resources industries that it is time for a wake-up call.  And the response isn't always going to be positive.  But a once-in-awhile positive is more than existed before.

Transphobia / homophobia are driven by ignorance.  Legislation is only one step toward acceptance, and only addresses ignorance-driven actions after the fact.  The longer-term and more difficult process is in changing hearts and minds.  It's not a comfortable process, it may not seem like people are ready for that yet, but in the end it's crucial.  

And it will happen by people telling their stories, no matter how uncomfortable the rest of us might be with that.

Christine Jorgensen's story was inevitable, but no less shocking. In some ways, I suspect Beatie's and Moore's were, too.  The stories are out there, and now it's our job to provide context... and not let the crazies do it for us.

---

by: Mercedes @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:35:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you Mercedes

You summed up what's been sitting at the back of my brain perfectly.

This "Media Circus" of one story and a couple of photos forces a trans family into peoples minds. It makes them think about it, and realize it's something they may come into contact with.

Unfortunately, some people will be like Janet, and react with scorn and hatred. We can't use those reactions as an excuse not to share our lives with the world, otherwise none of us will ever leave our house for fear of not being accepted.

We have to be out there, in the world, changing minds and hearts by continuing to be ourselves regardless of the forces stacked against us.

Cathryn - I understand we've upset your apple cart, that you feel we should be nice, and quiet and blend into the background. Unfortunately, we don't live in the 70's anymore. This is 2010, it's the information age, and if you want to gain acceptance, you've got to put yourself out there. The discussion is going to happen, the question is whether we're going to lead the discussion, or let it happen without us.

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 14:47:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Were these the same pos's that would harass me before

I came out? I was pregnant when I was young but still passed as male. How nice of them to make anyone that doesn't fit into their stereotypical narrow world view less than human.

---

by: pantherq @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 14:53:28 PM CST

Why should we care?

I mean about a transman having a baby, not about morning shock jocks. This is between him and his partner and if they think bringing another child into this world, more power to them. None of us has any say in the matter. And if it is the man and his partner bringing it to my attention in some fashion like this? Well, they get my good wishes. Me, I didn't choose to have a kid. I had 2 one night stands and ended up with a kid each time (my mom joked that if a boy so much as looked at me, I'd get pregnant. As if she had room to talk since she gave birth to 6 kids). I gave them both up for adoption because I knew I had no place trying to raise a kid.

If we should care about ANYTHING, perhaps it is that a couple (or a single parent for that matter) CHOOSES to have a child. Which means the child will most likely grow up in a loving home.  

"Any transition serious enough to alter your definition of self will require not just small adjustments in your way of living and thinking but a full-on metamorphosis."

---

by: thehawke @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 18:47:53 PM CST

When I saw these photos

All I could think was, "Oh, this is beautiful- a happy family. Good for them."

And that was IT- "on to the next story" time.

What a shame that others can't simply be happy for Tom, Scott and their children, and see the love, joy and excitement on their faces.

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 19:51:05 PM CST

To Michael Bedwell

Hi. I was reading earlier and I have a couple questions for you, if you don't mind.  I understand that you are likely feeling somewhat defensive at this time, so I will forego pushing for answers, but I would like such if you have the time.

Since my presence here seems to be related to threads dying and people leaving those with anything to do with trans stuff because I apparently adopt the wrong tone, I will ask the questions and not respond except -- maybe -- to ask further questions.

You said:

The only relevant "animus" I have is to "attention whores" who put that need ahead of the potential harm their attention whoring can do to others....no matter what their gender identity, their sexual orientation, their nationality, their age, their race, religion, or creed.

Question 1:  What harm can this couple do to others?

You said:

the couple is only legally married because one while personally "identifying" as male used the birth certificate identifying "him" as female thus apparently wanting to have it both ways. To be exact, I could find no indication of when they were married so it's impossible yet to know whether they married as a "heterosexual couple," or as a "gay couple" in the brief window in 2008 when that was legal in CA. BUT Scott became Jessica again long enough for the issuing of a license.

Question 2: Why does their being married as a straight couple or gay couple matter in terms of their being referred to as men in your commentary on them?

I hope to read your answers, and thank you in advance.

Dyss

This Is H.O.W.: Making Life Better Non profit transition living facility and services.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 23:46:13 PM CST

Thank you for your questions

1. RE "harm": an analogy I would attempt is trying to teach calculus to first graders. Calculus is morally neutral but much of the world is still like first graders when it comes to issues of gender identity and its accompanying gender expectation conformity, discomfort from any "deviation" from same is is what I believe is the basis for both homophobia and transphobia.

If the goal is eliminating homo/transphobia ... primarily for the LGBTs who are oppressed/discriminated against because of it and, secondarily, for those feeling it, e.g., our parents, then it is impractical to overload their circuits, so to speak. When one does that, all one gets is "shutdown."

This couple, and the Beaties, chose the provocative/overload route. If they had presented their stories in the form of a long form magazine article or, better still, a book in which the provocative photos could have been placed in the context of easy to understand explanations of the spectrum of gender identities, the difference between those and biology, the choices that each individual should be able to make, they would have contributed understanding.

While the trans man, Michael Brown, Autumn quoted did not challenge their motives as I did, his reasons for objecting were no different than mine:

"I can tell you that trans men are divided on the issue of trans men giving birth. Many are incredibly angry, others are c'est la vie. I know that many transmen have kids, all along for decades, when in all stages of transition. They didn't have to become a media "sensation" overnight, they simply chose to conceive a child and that's great.

I'm on the side of -- if they're a man, then don't get pregnant. BUT -- if they do, don't take it to the media. Keep it low profile. ... But being out in the news is not good right now, with society needing so much education."

I stated clearly that I agreed that the comments of the radio jocks were insensitive, and probably meant to provoke themselves; the nature of this genre. If they genuinely wanted to understand they could have invited the couple for an interview.

2. I brought up the marriage issue because, again, in the absence of contextual explanation [none of which I've seen in the mainstream media accounts I've read] it can appear to the "first graders" that the erroneous lesson they've been taught, that "being gay" or "being trans" is something that one can simply choose, then discard, particularly with the help of Jebus, is true.

Was using the birth certificate "wrong" of Scott and Thomas, or, again, IN THAT MOMENT, Jessica and Thomas? No. Whatever it takes to get the benefits of marriage, even if it's only psychological, is okay by me. Use a birth certificate you would otherwise abhor, do what it takes to pass [as Billy Tipton did to continue relationships with women who did not know he was biologically female, tho he was never legally married], go to another, more accepting country, etc.

And, again, the GLAAD guide is out of date, and, in any case, "political correctness" is no excuse for forbidding discussion, politicizing punctuation, or any other form of anti-intellectualism. After all, only our brains are going to save us from ignorance, particularly that which is taught.

 

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 01:18:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you for the responses.

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask two more.

You earlier used the term "harm" specifically, and yet your response to question 1 does not speak about harm.  

Question 3. Since it appears now that you did not mean to use the word harm, why did you?

Your response to question 4 explains a great deal about why you wrote the general comment I culled from, but I wasn't asking about that.  I was asking about what any of that had to do with your use of pronoun punctuation.

Question 4. On what basis do you feel that their getting married creates a sense that being gay or trans is something one can choose?

Please forgive me for my failure to grasp how your responses answered my queries -- I can see how there is value in them to you in terms of the overall discourse, but I'm otherwise staying out of it lest my presence lead to the aforementioned problem.

This Is H.O.W.: Making Life Better Non profit transition living facility and services.

http://www.dyssonance.com  Breaking all the rules...

---

by: dyssonance @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:19:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But for this couple

Mere existence is provocative/overload.

As you note. You say, they "went that route". They went that route by making their personal life public.

If it is possible to "overload" society by simply not presenting a lie, then that would make a strong argument that a provocation moment is needed, because that person who "overloaded" society has to live in society. They will be outside with their partner, try to get bank loans, go to PTA meetings for their kids.

They will live boring human lives in the society that responds to their very existence as a "provocation".

The radio jocks are trying to "provoke" a negative backlash, basically try and retake the public space and reinforce the notion that it is not safe to have that life or to exist and be commented on it. A forced closet that gets all of us to feel alone and freakish, second-doubting ourselves and the lives we lead.

To break through that, obviously, the culture needs to change and acknowledge the existence of the people that were "provocative" to begin with so they can live their lives freely without the rest of society attempting to force them back into a closet so they don't have to deal with the nasty heterogeneity of human existence.

This is the cultural battle above it all, almost. Progressive and conservative. One seeking to acknowledge human diversity and heterogeneity, one seeking to deny it.

Given the two, it would seem an easy decision, one revels in the ignorance of humanity, the other seeks to learn and thus improve itself. As you say, our brains are going to save us from ignorance, meaning the movement from ignorance is a human good or in short a good thing.

Welcome to knowledge.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 07:03:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Another pregnant man...

and the world is flat and I have a dragon living in my backyard.

"We now return to our regularly scheduled programming..."

---

by: lisalee18wheeler @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 00:45:12 AM CST

oh please

Transmen complain when people refer to them as she or her. Well i get it. I understand that u want to be represented accurately to reflect your gender. I respect that too.

However do u blame people when this kind of story comes up for their confusion? Men cannot have children. It is nature. When childbearing belongs to the females of every species, how is it possible for a man to get pregnant, hmm????

You want the title then earn it. Men do not get pregnant. It makes a mockery of the trans fight to do things this way. That is why people do not take transsexuals seriously. Stop mocking yourselves. Be who you say you are.

---

by: sillyme @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 05:56:19 AM CST

That's not nature

Your statement confuses a lot of things. Gender and sex are not a binary; it's much more complex than that. "The trans fight", as you put it, isn't just to show that people who were assigned one gender can become another gender. It's to show that sex and gender are wonderfully varied, and that people should have the freedom to live anywhere on the spectrum that they want to (including not on the spectrum), the freedom to change, and the freedom to be free of repressive formulations of gender and sex. "Men cannot have children" is one such formulation.  

---

by: Jiawen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 07:40:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Seahorses

Disproving the ignorant drivel of psuedoscientists since 1871. We thank you for your attempt at applying a universal sexual separation mark despite the heavy limitations of zero comprehension of the field of biology and urge you to try again when you have taken a remedial biology class.

Thank you so much for your time, we will keep your opinion on file and get back to you as soon as possible.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:29:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't forget the clownfish!

They're sequential hermaphrodites

Clownfish live in strict hierarchical communities. Each neighborhood is dominated by a top-ranking female breeder. Her male partner is next, followed by up to four progressively smaller, non-breeding fish. When the dominant female dies, her mate changes sex and becomes female. The top-ranking non-breeder becomes a sexually active male, and all the other fish shift up a rank.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 14:15:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think this also points out

A giant third rail we've had in public discourse about trans issues. Which is really getting into the nitty gritty of the in-between.

I think there's a lot of resistance to the idea that things can't be wonderfully put into little boxes and that the separations between the genders and the sexes may be paper thin at times, more so between the sex.

I think it's at the heart of the animus about trans people. "What is 'it'?" is the phrase we have learned most to recoil about and fear in terms of proving how we "didn't pass". There is a resistance to the idea that maleness and femaleness being as they are almost entirely chemical brain self-recognition aspects rather than any specific physical or chromosomal aspect allows a great potential of diversity in how that plays out.

To limit this, even us in the community find ourselves under considerable stress to conform to the narrowest option. Full physical transitions, burn the reminders of the past, "proper" gender presentation as expected from real sex. Now, this isn't to say that there's something wrong with doing this or that a lot of trans people go through this style of transition. Gender dissonance is painful, there's nothing wrong with wanting a fresh start from that or allowing yourself to explore one's feminine or masculine gender side or have that be part of the impetus to transition or realize what you are.

It's a common story, especially because those are the people most likely to know they are trans and thus should transition, hell I blocked my own self-realization all through college that "I'd make an ugly woman" just because I'm an agendered transwoman.

And to get back on topic, this fear, both supported by the literally life-and-death fear of backlash and the driving narratives leaves a lot of in-between cases unspoken for fear of "feeding" a culture that refuses to see us as we are to begin with.

But I wonder if such a natural reaction is right though.

I mean, a lot of transphobia is rooted in the fear of the "in-between", that aspects considered rock solid and immutable are merely physical shadows of who we really are and the wonderful heterogeneity of human existence is far more varied than we ever give ourselves credit for. That humanity is rarely an analog switch, but a vast spectrum.

It can feel alienating in the old frames, but it is also freeing. We are all "freaks" when we cop to it and taking out that anxiety over something we actually all have in common on the most visible "freaks" is what makes trans people so susceptible to violence.

It's not a right way or wrong way thing or a "bad messages" thing. I think it's all helpful for getting us to a world where people start trusting the person the they're talking to for sex and gender rather than trying to force their preconceptions on the target.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 06:54:44 AM CST

impossible to discuss here

Any position taken here, even by those with trans histories, that comes from the side of the right to identify with a gender binary system (which I'd argue is the vast majority of men and women of transsexual history) is held to an impossible double standard based on these "media guidelines" that many of us find downright insulting and demeaning in and of themselves.

Just saying this puts my Pam's account at risk and that is the problem in a nutshell.  Only a position of strict gender deconstructionism is permitted....and it is far from the dominate position.

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 08:17:34 AM CST

Then the dominate position is wrong

Simple Answers to Simple Ignorance.

Seriously, there is no way to understate the raw biodiversity not only in the human condition but in life in general.

Yes, a lot of trans people end up supporting a sometimes stricter binary system and its fully understandable why. We are constantly doubted and raised in a strict binary system. The ones who transition or feel the most internal pressure to acknowledge themselves are those who feel the strongest gender dissonance and while this is more random it is probably most easily pinpointed by those who are not only the wrong sex mentally but also whose wrong sex has as its baseline the wrong gender as well. Thus a feminine woman's mind trapped in a boy's body or a masculine man's mind trapped in a girl's is going to be most under internal dissonant pressure to transition.

Furthermore, hostile environments and literal Harry-Benjamin roadblocks to anyone who doesn't then exaggerate or is naturally very X reinforce this. Those who are allowed by doctors to get the hormones or surgeries to pass tend to be the most binary representations of their genuine genders while others find it harder to get the process or deal with the potential environment once they do.

This is compounded by the threat of discovery and potentials towards violence if they are seen as not their genuine sex, plus they are often freed by the process to examine the gender presentation that was often discouraged to them in their old body, thus allowing phases of essentially second adolescences wherein they discover themselves anew and allow excesses in gender in the same way as an adolescent cis boy or girl would in their early teens when they often go through the process.

It can also be good to defend, I fully understand that, as enemies often search for any bs they can get away with to deny one's real sex as fictional and "a product of the brain's chemistry and self-recognition neural pathways" is unfortunately close to "made-up" or "all in their mind" to a neurobiologically ignorant general public. Thus speaking to that set-up allows a no-muss, no-fuss way of dealing with potential bastards.

Course, it's also not wholly accurate and leaves intersexed and non-gender-conforming transpeople out in the cold as well as the wealth of non-gender-conforming women and men both gay and straight and requires feeding the very "men are men, women are women, that's it" worldview that treats transpeople as such an aberration to begin with.

We know better than most that crossing that barrier (physically) is as easy as flooding in the right hormone cocktail and that so-strong separation tears like a traditional Japanese door.

I guess what I'm saying is that you're wrong, but who cares, we all got to survive this nasty world right?

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:50:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow

First, I was born intersexed, were you?  I am hardly "out in the cold".  Second, my sex is real, not artificial and actually questioned in the real world by no one but transgenders.  I've even been invited to MWMF by radfems who are familiar with my personal history.  Only trans activists have told me I'll never be a "real" woman as you just implied as well.  I call foul.

And in closing, if you flood a man with estrogen you get a somaticly feminized man, not a woman.  Same thing with a woman given testosterone, which, btw, sometimes happens naturally in a condition called PCOS.  I happen to have a number of PCOS women friends and can assure you, they identify totally as female and women despite having had to deal with male level testo.  Neurological sex cannot be changed, that's why SRS is the only known treatment for those born neurologically at odds with their genitals.  That's pretty much a duh.  And before you try to counter with PAIS or CAIS, those conditions are present prenatally during the neurological formative stages and thus prevent the masculinization of the central nervous system in the first place leaving nature's default, female.

Sea horses?  let's get real and stick to mammals at least.  Come on now, you could have gone hyena.  But in the end even a hyena is not a human is it?

I have personally rejected the transgender world view you seem to think I secretly agree with, stop making the assumption that a similar pre-history means I am in any fashion like you, I'm not.

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 13:44:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

...

Uh, that was a fabulous defense of the exact sort of non-dualistic regardings of sex and gender you decried earlier. Do you have any idea what the gender binary is or what your own viewpoints are in regards gender, sex, and sexuality?

I can see why you feel on the outskirts of any debate.

And I didn't say that intersex women aren't real women. They are of course real women, but the argument you initially laid out regarding the gender binary deliberately excludes women like you from being women despite being 100% true blue human. Hence why I said biology and most reputable scientists have a much different way of looking at human gender and sex. In many ways it is greatly simplified as we can simply ask the subject themselves, humans being able to do something animals can't and communicate their inner lives.

In general, I have little to no idea of what your opinion is. You argue for a gender binary and only a gender binary then defend from the more holistic approach to gender and sexuality. You claim a nature demands argument and then immediately not only show knowledge of nature's inability to fit into this box, but then try and argue from a biodiversity situation.

I do think debate would be impossible, but not for the reasons you claim as I wouldn't really know how to respond given that your arguments are not really all that consistent at least by any version of gender binary I'm at all familiar with.

If you're arguing for the existence of a distinct mental sex that tends to be more analog than say our mental gender? Then I can agree on that. There are very few people who seem to be in two minds regarding their sex, gender is another matter and the brain tends to go into some nasty programs when that doesn't link up to its conception of body (see gender dissonance).

Of course, this also gets into what is considered sex. As we can see, sex is an aspect of the brain, fairly fixed, but since it has little to do with genitalia, biological processes or even chromosome, what is or isn't important for the brain to recognize the body is a mixed bag. Hence some people who only need the hormone treatments, some who desire as much as possible and still others who merely adopt non-medical techniques. Whether or not a penis or a vagina is a hideous reminder of your body betraying you or no big whoop radically differs between people who share the same sex dysmorphia.

So to say that something such as pregnant men somehow betrays transness is to argue for a non-brain inherent quality to maleness or femaleness which the very trans experience or some intersexuals (those who are born with multiple genitalia) easily disprove before we've even brought in our first seahorse or hyena or spore-releasing plant. This is demonstrably false and what we talk about in regards to gender binary.

That internal sex (the sex the brain thinks the body is in) tends to be mostly fixed and analog (I'm sure there are cases where that's not the case, human heterogeneity, etc...) really doesn't say much on how that looks besides that hence making most gender essentialist arguments moot. If the only thing is what the person's brain says they are, then body, hormones, chromosomes, genitals, sexual behavior, all sort of don't really get brought up because it's the only fixed point.

But in general, I hope you figure out what you think.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 14:44:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

excuse me?

You are reasoning in circles and have the gall to suggest I'm the one confused?

Neurological sex is hardwired into the brain during the early stages of neonatal development.  This we know as absolute fact although we are still not clear on why this sometimes is at odds with somatic development.  That it happens is beyond reasonable doubt, only the mechanism of how is still in the air.

Those at odds are called classic transsexed individuals, as it happens, I am not one of them but was surgically constructed transsexed at birth by an arrogant SOB of a doctor who freaked at my hermaphroditic body and sewed up my labia.  I nearly died at puberty multiple times as a direct result.

People born classically transsexed know what sex they are supposed to be from the earliest ages.  This is one of the primary markers of having the condition known as transsexuality.  If it is not present, one is not born transsexed, period.

Biologic diversity supports a basic binary in richer understanding rather than refutes it.  The whole nurture thing should have died along with that lying rat bastard John Money as it depended on his single class built on professional lies.  FYI, I was reading my father's old psychology texts at the age most likely you were still on "see spot run".

Those who are transgender are not classically transsexed, they are totally different things.  While I will concede there may also be biologic underpinings to transgender, to date not one single study has supported that.  On the other hand well over (and growing almost daily) 300 separate and distinct studies show the neurological basis of classic transsexuality with exactly 0 in opposition.  In real world science this is almost unheard of and establishes it as fact about on the same level that if you drop a cannon ball, it falls.

The mere existence of women such as myself give lie to most of the gender deconstructionist nonsense based in self serving psychobabble and reinforces the binary as valid even with biodiversity fully taken into context. Cogniti ergo mulier, if you wish.

Sorry if these ideas are too complex for you, I assure you some of the best minds in psychiatry have no problem following them.  I talk daily to one of them.  Another marker for classic transsexuality, btw is being two standard deviations above the norm in intelligence and creatively.  

So, as for your insulting reply......tell it to the foot cause the hand ain't listening.  But then what would one expect from someone who's nick is the name of a three headed hound that guards the gates of hell?  That stands as a pretty good indicator of embracing a "freak" identity from where I'm sitting rather than a binary one (see three headed goat in an earlier comment here).

When you cannot partake in a discussion due to lack of understanding, go to the personal insults as you just demonstrated.  Maybe that way no one will notice you are out of your league.

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 15:36:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reread my comment

We have pretty damn near the same conclusion regarding sex as an aspect of the brain (not the mind, the brain) and how "gender dissonance" arises. Where we seem to differ on that aspect maybe that I allow the possibility of someone who is of two sexes in their hardwiring or no sexes in their hardwiring, but it's probably a greater minority if existant at all than many other things. It's a pretty fixed point so far.

Where we seem to differ for the most part seems to be the conclusions we're drawing.

I'm stating that the brain is a fixed point. But nothing else is. And given that gender is its own separate entity with some aspects being potentially hardwired and others obviously the result of social designation, this means the gender presentation post-transition can vary greatly as it varies in cis-women. And since only the brain is really involved in the "correct sex", what the physical body has or doesn't have or what it can do or can't do is sort of "up to user" as it were as long as it solves their personal dissonance.

Whereas, I guess you are assuming that there is a more packaged deal expected from that brain is a fixed point idea. I'm not really entirely sure or why from that point you are so adamant to deny the maleness of the pregnant man.

We definitely disagree but it's hard to pinpoint where and it's most likely that's a failure on my part as its not your purpose to explain your thought process so I can understand it.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:10:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

from your website heading.......

"Singularly Bizarre
Musings from an agendered asexual radical feminist transwoman in a poly relationship on politics, mad science, life, the universe, and everything"

Pardon me for making this observation but you seem to revel in being in mutually exclusive classes.  If one is a radical feminist, one literally cannot be trans identified.  If one is asexual, it is impossible to be poly (which clearly implies sexual relations with multiple partners)

Suddenly your inability to follow my thoughts is much much clearer....

And lest you yet again do the Olympic conclusion jump, I am a fairly radical feminist, I live in a women's spirituality collective I co-founded, I started a NOW chapter and I lead a Goddess Religious Movement.....I'm about as far from conservative as it gets.

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:40:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow...

You are Nooneinparticular!

Your Commune is in upstate NY, right?

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:48:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

resume your personal crusade

of cyber stalking and harassment at your own peril.  

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:04:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LOL.

You're deluded, I never stalked you, I just asked you uncomfortable questions you don't want to answer because they show you're a hypocrite.

Now that I know who you are, none of what you said here is a surprise.

If you're not a trans woman any more - GO AWAY.

It's as simple as that.

Why do you feel the need to keep butting into conversations that you claim no longer apply to you?

KTHXBYE

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:13:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

look familiar?

http://www.susans.org/forums/i...

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:52:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Another Classic

http://www.susans.org/forums/i...

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:10:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ah

Problems a lot in definitions and how we're using words.

And I would argue that radical feminism does not at all require gender essentialism, though I'm sure that was different back in the second wave's common usage. And being asexual practically requires being poly unless I want to date other asexuals. Cause, kinda unfair to require monogamous fidelity of a sexual partner and ask them to deny their sexuality or sexual enjoyment just to be with me.

I don't view you as conservative, just more of an enigma. I am having trouble following your conclusions from similar facts and am feeling like I'm missing something important.

Which is true. We have some differences in how we're using certain words and we definitely have different views of certain concepts and the conclusions to be drawn from them.

I don't view them as inherently conservative. There might be a generational gap though, which is pretty common occurrence, especially in feminist movements or any movement where one builds upon what came before even when the last fight still isn't actually over.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:59:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the main disagreement

In fact is in the implication.

We both agree on the facts, there is an aspect of brain that seems fixed, something mental, physical, chemical gets hard-wired and boom dissonance.

But I argue that means, yup, male and female is that brain aspect, what that looks like can vary as there's nothing else implied but this hard-wiring, whereas you seem to be arguing from more of a it's hard-wired, thus all of it is hard-wired thing where there can then be a right and wrong way to be trans and it looks exactly like the HBS.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:06:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

pointless discussion

If one isn't "trans" then one isn't being a right or wrong one.  This simple concept seems beyond you.  Classic transsexed people do not trans identify, transsexual is a birth condition not an identity.  Transgender is an artificial identity embraced for political reasons that almost every binary person post corrected rejects completely and utterly.  Embracing a transgender identity automatically places you outside the binary, you know the whole everyone cis hates me garbage.

Trans identified people are, by trans identifying, rejecting the binary for a third.....therefore they have no legitimate claim on the binary and should be adult enough to accept all that goes with that.  

I am not trans identified, I am woman identified.  Hear me roar.  Since this has degenerated to a person who personally threatened and harassed me and was banned from a group for doing so and you and myself and you both are immovable further conversation is pointless.

Colour me gone from this thread.....
Autumn, you can relax now.

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:23:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Delusion again.

I was never banned from a forum, and I certainly never threatened you. I posted the link for everyone to read and judge for themselves. I got a warning, but so did you, so it was even.

You simply don't understand the damage your exclusionary bigoted beliefs cause. You don't care about anyone but yourself. You're just running away because I called you on it.

You need to take a good long look in a mirror and examine why you hate trans people.

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:38:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Blink blink

Yeah, the way you define your words and the way I do is ve~ry different.

But hey, heterogeneity of experiences, right? It's a wonderful thing.

Take care.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:41:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay, I'll relax. =)

Seriously, while I disagree with your view on transgender and transgender identities, Cathryn, you are expressing a point of view that is held by many folk who call themselves as classic transsexuals, people of transsexual history, or as those who identify themselves as having Harry Benjamin Syndrome, etc...

...People need to know that transsexuals are not a monolithic group of people with uniform perspective -- in fact, how we even define the term transsexual may be somewhat different. How you choose to label or not label yourself, as well your points of view, should be discussable between reasonable people in a reasonable way.

As for transgender being an "artificial identity," I would argue that sociology's definition of a situation comes into play:

If a situation is perceived as real, it is real in its consequences.

Because there a large number of people who identify with the sociopolitical term transgender, therefore the situation of transgender community exists -- and therefore it is real in its consequences.

There are other sociopolitical and creed related identities that exist in the same way, such as the sociopolitical identities of feminist and queer, and creed related identities that include Christian, Hindu, Pagan, atheist. There is nothing physical about oneself that makes one feminist, queer, atheist or Christian, so these too could be considered artificial identities.

However, whether or not feminist, queer, Christian, or atheist identities are artificial or not, they are real identities nonetheless, and therefore real in their consequences.

I personally wouldn't call transgender an artificial identity; I would refer to it as I have here: as a sociopolitical identity. As a sociopolitical identity, that means that everyone who could fit under that umbrella term of transgender embraces the term; not every transsexual, crossdresser, or genderqueer person identifies as a member of transgender community. This is much like everyone who is female gendered doesn't identify as feminist, or everyone who same sex attractions doesn't identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (think ex-gays/former homosexuals).

This is why I strongly believe we need to let people self-identify their own belonging or not belonging within sociopolitical communities; I don't think I should tell you that you're transgender; by the same token I don't think you should tell me I'm not a transsexual and/or I'm not transgender.

I believe we all get to self-identify our sociopolitical identities with very few caveats.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 22:57:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where you....

..... Nooneinparticular on Susan's Place?

Because your style of exclusionist ranting seems familiar.

First, you have no evidence to place Scott Moore in the Transgender camp. He made a decision to have a child, that does not mean he identifies outside the Binary.

Second, you're right on one point - there is a neurological difference in the brains of Transsexual women.

What I don't understand is why you have such a vehement hatred of people who exist outside of that binary?

Is the concept of someone who has a partially masculinized brain impossible to conceive of when you've already accepted and embraced a fully masculinized brain in a feminine body and a fully feminized brain in a masculine body? If it can happen a lot, why can't it happen a little?

Research may not back this idea up yet, but there was a point not to long ago when research didn't back up a lot of things we now know as fact.

If you look at the wide range of diversity in how the general population expresses gender, is it any surprise that the Trans Community also has a wide diversity? We don't all march in lock step, and that's the point.

There isn't one unique cause either. Some would argue whether I belong in the intersex or transgender camp, because I have a mosaic Kleinfelter's pattern. I also have Asperger's - so I'm not even between genders, I'm off in Left Field being a Geek for the most part. I drive my partner crazy because I primarily identify as female, but when I geek out, I exhibit very stereotypical male obsessive behavior.

People expanded their world view to include you, it's not fair of you to close your world view to exclude us.

BTW, yes, you seem well spoken and intelligent, but claiming you're more intelligent then the rest of the people in the discussion just makes you look pompous. I'm a certified genius who, if I chose, could join MENSA tomorrow based on my 1450 SAT in 1993. I haven't pursued that because my life is pretty full as it is. You're not the only intelligent person in the room.

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:33:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well from my personal perspective

I would argue that gender and internal sex are separate distinct entities. Thus what someone does to resolve dissonance in internal sex disparities with body (relating to trans experiences) will often have fuck all to do with how we view masculinity and femininity and certainly how we view "maleness" and "femaleness" as a society.

There is little to suggest that trans women and men should be any less varied and diverse than the gender presentations and gender identifications (masculine or feminine, mixtures or absences) than the cis-gendered world. Indeed as is the case it often turns out more varied because some aspects from "before" maybe aren't triggering and thus not necessary to eliminate for brain-body harmony.

Hence there should be all variety of gendered trans people (butches and femmes and androgynes and agenders, oh my) and reminders that the things we assume are universal traits hardly are (a man can birth a baby, a woman can impregnate someone, a man can have a vagina, a woman can have a penis, a man can be curvy, a woman can be blocky).

We are remarkably heterogeneous as a species.

And yes, some of it is from personal experience. I denied who I was to myself my entire life for superficial idiotic reasons. I didn't believe I'd look good as a woman, I didn't have a taste for femininity or feminine gender presentation. Even when I knew better, when I was a radical feminist and knew that being a woman could look so vast and encompass so many ways of being, I thought my little agendered ass would somehow not fit. All until I really looked at it and realized that my gender dissonance had fuck all to do with my views on makeup or femininity.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:49:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

more assumptions?

I do not "hate" non binary people, I actually have zero problem with them until they try to force me into their camp.  My issues with deconstructionism is the total intellectual dishonesty of claiming a third gender and then turning around demanding membership in the very binary you just rejected.

I ceded the possibility of partial sexual identification, but it has zero basis in established fact so I feel free to point that out to a group, who as a class, has spent the past ten years denying the reality of the neurological basis of transsexuality in the face of the overwhelming evidence and, incidentally at a direct cost of ADA civil rights protections for those classically transsexed.

And you tried to invoke that mythical "trans community" implying I'm a part of it somehow.......screw you and the three headed goat you rode in on.

And I aimed the comment on intelligence with lazer precision at the idiot who insulted me because they lacked the IQ to follow a discussion above the level of "tree pretty, fire burns".  That you took it personally says more about you than about me.  As a proud crone I no longer will yield to the expectations that a woman should hide her intelligence or buy into the anti-intellectual bs that the uneducated opinion is somehow the equal of the educated one in some misguided, screwed up version of equality.

 

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:55:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please

I didn't take your comment on intelligence to heart personally, I just thought you were being particularly pompous. Guess what, I was right.

Not all people who live a Transgender experience are complete deconstructionists.

I believe gender is a spectrum, similar to Autism and Sexuality. Most people exist near one of the poles.... great for you that you do, but why do you have a problem with those of us who don't?

No one here has argued against a neurological cause for Classic Transexualism. So, your anger is misguided and inappropriate.

There was a time when the social stigma of crossing gender boundries was so severe that only those who truly existed solely at one pole transitioned - i.e. you. Thank you for breaking down those barriers so those of us who don't exist at the poles have more freedom to express ourselves. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable, but you are being hypocritical in your position.

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:03:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well that and gender and sex are at least partially

And I would argue wholly separate. Few alive today would argue whether someone was interested in sports would determine if they were male or not or whether someone enjoyed cooking or gardening or even dresses as whether they were female or not.

Many of the shortcuts of gender we use for figuring out maleness or femaleness really have little connection to sex and the experiences of trans people prove that even the physical clues have little connection.

If sex is just a box in your brain, how that looks (the spectrum and mish-mash of gender) is going to be a wonderfully diverse version of that and you'll get people 100% male men who will show that by say getting pregnant or keeping their vagina or wearing a dress and still be 100% male men.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 17:15:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Futterfury and CathrynP...

...Please knock off the mutual flaming.

Please make it a point in the future to discuss the issues as issues here within the threads of PHB, and not trade personal barbs.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 23:08:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, that's not it at all.

You are expressing an opinion that is different than my position, and different than the positions of others in this thread. Others are too.

It's not what you say, but how you frame it. You are not permitted to refer to Scott Moore as a she, or refer to him with quotation marks around the male gender pronoun. You would also, for example, not permitted to put his first name in quotation marks.

However, you are allowed -- as you have communicated -- that Scott Moore is not conforming to male sex and gender norms, and you are allowed to say that if he wants to be perceived as fully male by broader society (as well as by many members who identify themselves as part of LGBT communities or subcommunities), he would need to conform to male sex and gender norms. And, you could say that this would include not being so public about his pregnancy.

To your broader point, I argue against a strict male and female sex and gender binary. I have argued that intersex people are physically related (such as externals like ambiguous external genitalia, as well as internals such as gonadal strips instead of overies and falopian tubes) and genetic related examples against a binary; transsexual and genderqueer people are brain related (such as the size and shape of the hypothalamus) and mind related examples that argue against a strict sex and gender binary.

You are free to disagree with me here in the threads on that opinion. You are not permitted to express your disagreement in a way that violates our TOS.

So, let's end right now the finger pointing at the TOS in this comment thread. Take discussions of what you perceive as the constraining nature TOS to open threads.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 13:29:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think we're straying....

From the issue at hand.

I understand the importance of the discussion at hand. I come down on the side of defending the reproductive rights of people, regardless of gender or sex.

However The issue here is what Janet and Nick said. Bare in mind - they aren't really shock jocks, they're morning radio top 40. They rarely get controversial.

They also work with a Trans Woman, and have for the past 2 years, so this is especially hurtful.

In case you're wondering, I'm the one who created the Facebook group, and the online petition, and gathered all of the contact info for the sponsors.

I'm also the wife of the trans woman who works with Janet and Nick. We did the same thing as Thomas and Scott - We got married after she had the legal gender change and before I did. So, We are two legally married trans women.

I think subversive actions like taking advantage of a loophole to become legally married are positive for the community, because it throws it back in their face, and because we're two normal, ordinary people going about our lives.

Now, this debate is healthy and good, but let's not forget why we're here.

Everyone sign the petition and tell Janet and Nick they need to apologize.

Write an email to Larry Robb, the GM and VP of Kiss 98.5 lrobb@entercom.com.

We need to present a united front to the Muggles.

Yes, I'm really close to this issue, I take Janet's comments as a personal insult to my wife. It's hard for me to separate my emotion and be objective, but I'm really trying.

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 08:33:34 AM CST

apologize for what?

They had pretty darn normal reaction to a story like this, they were utterly respectful of the pronoun usage as has been noted here.......so what is the issue?  That they, like 99.9% of the world don't buy gender deconstructism or even get it?

I don't get it either.  I fixed a physical problem and now am a woman (cis variety in my mind) and frankly this waving private matters about in public is always going to result in this sort of reaction.  Rarely is it done this respectfully.

Trans people into the deconstruction stuff, get over yourselves, you just look like angry fools when you over react to every single incident where normal people react like normal people.  I used to advise new transitioners that they had better get a sense of humour to transition because a lot of what they were going to experience is funny in the larger picture.

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 09:09:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

...

You don't hear The disgust in Janet's voice when she said "Ick" or her sing song "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong"?

This isn't about gender deconstruction, this is about a loving couple, and the natural drive of a human being to procreate.

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 09:59:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What I heard

Was a typical female reaction to what, frankly appears to be the ultimate expression of male invasion into women's reality.

You see, to most people on the planet, giving birth is the single most female thing a woman can do.  But what do I know?

This brave new trans world of women with penises and men who give birth runs contrary to everything most people understand about the world and those who actually live in the non trans world share this understanding.  And gladly and willingly conform to it because we transitioned to men and women and not transgenders.  You see, some of us figured out you cannot have everything both ways.  If he is male and treated as such, and he was, he cannot expect any other reaction to getting pregnant deliberately from the non trans world than would a three headed goat.  The precious "media guidelines" were strictly adhered to, so what basis is this "apology" demand based on?  That a ludicrous situation was treated as such?

While I personally have zero problem with this couple, I have a huge problem with them going public with it. And if I get more specific on this, I'll get my account nuked so I won't.

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 10:28:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

...

You know what Cathryn.... you're not worth the argument.

Just because your journey is over does not mean everyone has to take an identical journey to yours.

Scott Moore is not a three headed goat, and he's deserving of respect as a human being, regardless of whether you agree with his decisions or not.

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 11:03:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Never

Never, anywhere, have I ever stated that the way I traveled is the only road.  In fact, if you actually knew me you'd know I violated most of the accepted wisdom of transition in doing so.  I transitioned on my own terms by my own criteria but did so taking full responsibility for that as an adult human being with free will.

What I have said, and will repeat for the non trans people reading this is this:  If you embrace a third gender identity, you give up claims to a binary position.  That in no fashion says I disapprove of someone being third gendered, I do not disapprove of that, it simply states what even a third grader can grasp, once you eat your piece of cake, it's gone.  You cannot eat it and still have it.

Trans people are maybe 1% of the population yet over and over are the demands that the 99% surrender all the basic understanding of how the world works to the 1%.  The world doesn't work that way.  Neither does someone who deliberately does something that 99% considers freakish in the extreme and draws attention to that fact, have any reasonable expectation of being seen as anything other than freakish.

It has nothing at all to do with Scott and his partner's reproductive rights, hell, more power to them on that.  It is about knowingly and willingly taking on the mantle of being a side show freak (and many did this to make a living but also did so with open eyes) and then expecting that once having placed themselves in that position, they are not responsible for the reaction which there is no way they were unaware would happen.

---

by: CathrynP @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:05:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh I see

Excuse you please. Let us cut the b.s. Gender binary or what not is a purely human situation. Which other species shows this trait? Hmm??

Males have sperm which fertilise an egg in females to form babies. That is the way it goes. Its all about biology not psychology. This is nature in its basic principal. We will not be here if it were not.

The talk show hosts were not disrepectful. They were just honest. Its an honest reaction to something that is not usual. If i saw a man biologically born male with a pregnant belly...id be weirded out because that is not what i know as usual. I mean what do you expect? I dont expect an apology from them because they were being honest and still trying to be sensitive in their reaction. The lady said wrong right? Well yeah it is wrong to expect a man to carry a child. Lets call it as it is. A FTM transsexual still has the plumbing of a woman else she will not get pregnant right? Cool. But if you want to be seen as an everyday normal dude..getting pregnant is not the way, YOU CANNOT FAULT PEOPLE FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THIS.  

---

by: sillyme @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:35:46 PM CST

Seaaaaaa

Sea-horsin'

I'm Seaaaaa Sea-horsin'

Apologies to Tom Petty.

Also, really don't want to go to nature on this. Placental mammals are pretty much the only ones that work like that. Go to egg-bearing creatures and mating and fertilization can start getting really interesting. Go back a little further or a little further out and you start getting some really fascinating shit. Not just the asexual creatures, but hermaphrodite nematodes, any plant that releases spores, hell plants in general. Plants are weird reproductive-system wise.

Just because in sexually reproducing creatures that internally carry children, the majority are carried in mother doesn't make it some universal law of nature. It's pretty well disputed by nature itself, hence why you'll rarely see a reputable biology scholar raise an eyebrow over a pregnant trans man or start calling him she or a fake man because "men get pregnant".

It's biodiversity. We be diverse, yo.

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 12:56:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, but we could, for example...

...fault you for not understanding the nature of sex and gender.

You've made comments regarding biology, and sex and gender, in this diary's comment thread that indicates you are not actually familiar with what geneticists say; and what science tells us about sex and gender. Such as, there is good reading to be found in Eric Vilain, chief of medical genetics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, in his piece Gender Blender: Intersexual? Transsexual? Male, female aren't so easy to define:

Sex should be easily definable, but it's not. Our gender identity our profound sense of being male or female is independent from our anatomy. A constitutional amendment authorizing marriages only between men and women would not only discriminate against millions of Americans who do not fit easily in the mold of each category, but would simply be flawed and contrary to basic biological realities.

Also, scientist Zoe Brain has given us Sex and the Brain, Bigender And The Brain, and many other pieces on brains.

Again, please do some studying on sex and gender before speaking in fact statements -- statements with "be" form verbs like "is," "be," and "are" -- when what your saying is opinion.

Some examples from your thread comments:

• Let us cut the b.s. Gender binary or what not is a purely human situation.

• Males have sperm which fertilise an egg in females to form babies.

• The talk show hosts were not disrespectful.

• Well yeah it is wrong to expect a man to carry a child. Lets call it as it is.

...As well as other comments in other comments you made in the thread for this post.

As for your comment "The talk show hosts were not disrespectful," I would -- as a self-identified trans person -- disagree. Many other trans people have expressed disagreement with the sentiments of your statement. So, to quote my friend Allyson Robinson on transphobia:

If a whole bunch of trans people tell you that your words are transphobic, they're right.

As Allyson implies in her statement, trans people as a community get to decide what is disrespectful, offensive, and transphobic. You don't have the authority to overrule a whole bunch of people in trans community with your opinion statement that is stated as a fact:

The talk show hosts were not disrespectful.

I'm telling you that the radio hosts' statements were disrespectful, disdainful, and offensive. Other trans folk are saying the radio hosts' statements are disrespectful and transphobic. So to repeat myself: You don't get to overrule us with an opinion statement phrased as a fact statement.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 14:08:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Simplicity...

... Isn't it amazing how it becomes an excuse? Several people have commented that it is only natural to see the gap between male and female as a natural binary. The fact that 99% of the population isn't transgender is used as an excuse, as if the fact that a majority of the population finds something disgusting or just strange means that it must be so, and that their feelings are justified by their numbers.

There are several unfortunate implications to this reasoning.

First, to use Cathryn's 99%, the fact that 99% of the population is not trans does not mean that all of these people therefore by default find the idea of a pregnant man in any way disturbing or offensive. I don't believe I'm alone in being able to accept that not all people fit neatly into one of the two culturally created boxes that I fit into. Plenty of people can and do get over that kind of thinking.

Second, the idea that the majority has a right to degrade someone different from them because they are too visible has been used against the LGBT community for its entire history. Nobody should have to closet themselves, their families, or their lives just to avoid ridicule. A man being pregnant harms nobody, and I'm not inclined to mourn the potential damage to somebody's binary conception of gender. Its also worth noting that not every human culture views gender it terms of a binary.

And to conclude on that note, the implication that because this is unusual or doesn't fit into a specific worldview, it is unnatural. Historically speaking, the Kaguru people killed twins when they were born, because it was viewed as unnatural. Twins are, in their defense, not the normal pattern for human children, but should I have been born in that context, I wouldn't be alive. The mere fact that something is rare, however, does not qualify it as something that should be hidden and reviled.  

---

by: RichardLavigueur @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 15:40:40 PM CST

I'm actually reminded of a Devo song

"Freedom of choice is what you got,
Freedom from choice is what you want."

I think there's a tendency of people to be frightened by freedom. Finding out about the vast heterogeneity of human experiences and learning that there really isn't a right way to be or a right way to do things, that life is this big open world video game with no goals or objectives scares a lot of people especially those who were raised as we all were where the majority religions have very firm positions on the "wrong way" to live one's life and the punishments just waiting if you do so.

Basically, people freeze up in freedom, because "what if I choose wrong", "what if I can't go back", "what do I do". But a simple binary and there is a do and a do not, a simple task, a simple way to live your life and if you happen to be in the tiny minority that fits into the box that is naturally fit for the box it can even be fulfilling.

Sadly for the rest of us and we are legion when you add us all up, it doesn't fit and we know in our hearts that we are the way we are, but admitting that, demonstrating that opens the giant chasm of our glorious heterogeneity, the diversity of human experiences both lived and potential and there goes the comforting lie that hid you from them.

At least that's my theory. Personally I love the crazy diversity and would love it if everyone could be fully honest to themselves and everyone they loved about who they really were and what they really want. I want to bring about the kind of world where that is the norm and more people do things because they genuinely want to and less because "that's how it's done".

---

by: Cerberus @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:19:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I like you.

That is all.

---

by: Flutterfury @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 16:36:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Seconded

See above.  

---

by: RichardLavigueur @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 19:15:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I too am a big fan of embracing diversity.

What a horrible world this would be if it were completely homogenous.

~~~~~
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 23:12:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thirded. :)

Tax the Christian Taliban!

---

by: Wolfgang @ Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 17:00:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]